I know this is sarcasm, but I don't understand how this stuff gets modded up as "insightful."

Being an employee or member of a corporation in no way absolves an individual of CRIMINAL responsibility. Many corporate employees and executives have gone to jail over the years when they have committed criminal acts in the name of a corporation. In fact, being part of a corporation often opens up people to "conspiracy" charges, even if they aren't individually culpable, so being a corporate executive actually can open more avenues to prosecution.

Of course the reality is that executives are less likely to be convicted of serious crimes -- but that's because they're often rich and can afford better lawyers, not because they are legally less responsible for criminal action.

In any case, this was NOT a criminal action, so your misleading statement is completely irrelevant. This was a civil lawsuit, and this woman probably received significantly more in monetary damages than she would have if an individual had harassed her... so once again, it seems the corporation actually opens up a greater avenue for legal culpability than for an individual.

So, nuts to anyone who needs help, so we can screw those 19% that stay on welfare long term, which is not more then 5 years.

The profiles they used were identical in all cases. They apparently tried using the privacy features to block some tracking, but then as soon as they set their gender to female in their account profile the disparity kicked in.

Most likely it is advertisers requesting more men get their ads. It's a problem because they see a male dominated industry and figure that they should advertise to their biggest audience first (best use of limited resources), but in doing so further reduce the probability of women entering the field. Commercial interests vs. the interests of society, and probably the industry itself.

Your the best kind of correct, "technically correct", but your still wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...

Do roofers and landscapers really make $200k+ in the US? Sounds like a great job, landscaping stuff for $200k/year.

You correctly identified the point of the article but failed to recognize the point of my post.

Go back and read it, paying particular attention to the stuff I bolded.

People bold things because they are the most important part. If you re-read my post, you can see that the most important part was yelling at idiots for telling Google their gender, then complaining about what Google did with that information. The article, unlike my post, failed to point out how stupid it is to tell Google your gender.

We all know how well Amazon and Netflix predict what you would like to watch/read/buy based on past behavior. I am sure they are working on algorithms that predict what you would buy and how much you would be willing to pay. Pretty soon you would see $1.99 for an episode when you log in as A, but it could be $5.99 for B and free for C.

Right now more people are willing to pay more to Google show advertizements for shoes and lipstick to women than similar masculine products to men. So women see more lipstick ads and men see the lower priced ads for 200K jobs. It is even possible men are more likely to fall for 200 K con jobs than women who are more savvy in spotting fake ads.

That's not how it looks to me. There are things Jesus was very clear on, for example that you should pay your taxes and that being rich is a problem. Nor do I remember Jesus actually hating or hurting anybody. We're not talking about overturning the tables in the temple, but preaching hatred and deliberately hurting the helpless.

Yes, but you should know how to change a tire, where the gas goes, why you need a battery, etc... We're talking about basics. This gives you the opportunity to learn more when necessary. If it's a black box, too many people are too intimidated to try.

Prohibition was a combination of Federal, state, and local laws, the decisive actions being Federal. That's not the case with internet access. That's a matter of numerous different governments interacting badly.

Yes, many things have gotten better since the Bill of Rights was ratified. Do you have a point?

The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time. Google rare displays random ads. Their entire platform is built on targeting ads and thus providing better click-through rates. They don't even have ads on their front page, they wait for you to give them a hint about what it is you are interested in.

The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.

The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.

I'm not making up a hypothetical situation. I'm describing the Aurora shooting as best I can from what I read. The shooter was standing next to a very bright screen, making himself close to invisible, and there was some sort of smoke in the air.

If you add competent gun users to the theater, the odds get better, yes. It's still not good, and the bad guy is likely to get off quite a few rounds.

If you add guns to the good guys, without extensive training, you get chaos. People without the appropriate training are terribly inaccurate in a real life situation. There's also the question of who's doing the shooting, a guy you can't see by the screen or that other guy who just fired his gun you don't know at what.

I suspect that most of the people that I'd want going around armed are already competent with their weapons, are aware of gun safety, and have whatever permits they can get. Arming more people without mandatory training is going to create more gun accidents and provide dubious benefits.

In an obvious policy of sexism, female's browsers were less likely to be sent openings or training for plumbing

If you think plumbing is a shitty job, you should talk to my plumber, who is right now sitting on his 45-foot boat in Winthrop Harbor, almost certainly opening his first beer of the day.

The article said browsing behavior was identical, but I doubt google was magically detecting women.

At some point the women told Google their gender. Why? What moron thinks Google needs to know their gender?

But once you give Google (or Facebook, or Yahoo, or basically anyone...) information like gender, then I guarantee you they will correlate it with other people.

What this means is that somewhere in Google's algorithm they have found that people that claim to be women (this is the internet after all), are less likely to click on ads for high paying jobs.

So Google wisely decides to show them less such ads.

Do not blame Google for basing their ads on what they know about you and ALSO what they know about people like you.

Do blame yourself for telling Google that much about you.